Hardcore Computer.

[Todor]

The point is that the OP should not get a 980X for gaming because your paying the price of a computer for only a CPU. When you can get a 1155 i5 and get better performance.
When you get a 1155 board you can easily upgrade to Ivy bridge. Thats why 2500k is the better gaming CPU.
Probably gonna get flamed for this. But you havent tried WoW. Its that kind of game that gives you 40% more fps when overclocking an i5 from 3ghz to 3.8ghz. Imagine when you OC your 2500k to 5ghz.

My 950 is running at 4.5, believe me I know. As I said per core the 980x is more powerful, for the simpleton within you that means each of the 980's cores is more powerful than each of the 2500ks. The 980x has 6 cores + hyperthreading, it's MORE POWERFUL. Sure it's not bang per buck but you're saying that the 2500k is better which is simply not true. Anandtec have been paid/are retarded and are pitting a clocked 2500 vs a stock 980.

[Leon_Mokomaki]

Well. For the millionth time:
your right that the 980X is just more powerful overall and that it is faster per clock, but its not better for gaming. Six cores with twelve threads does not make it superior in the gaming department. Most games use maybe two threads, some might use more. Right now, four cores is plenty for gaming and six is just a waste, plain and simple. Its not just Anandtech that has these benchmarks, either. Do some digging and youll find out.

In fact, I did a little digging and here you go: http://www.techreaction.net/2011/01/...rld-part-22/6/. Pretty much, Sandy Bridge CPUs are superior for gaming in that they get the same performance in games at a fraction of the cost.

you're saying that the 2500k is better which is simply not true

If you can get more fps with 190 euros than 900 euros then it means that the 2500k is better.

[Julio.]

and thats why the i7 is meant for very processor heavy work like video rendering and 3D stuff.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Should get a GTX 570 ;D

The newer Nvidia Cards have CUDA cores. These take care of Video Rendering much faster than a Processor can.

[Leon_Mokomaki]

Actually even GeForce 8 series has CUDA.

[Todor]

Well. For the millionth time:
your right that the 980X is just more powerful overall and that it is faster per clock, but its not better for gaming. Six cores with twelve threads does not make it superior in the gaming department. Most games use maybe two threads, some might use more. Right now, four cores is plenty for gaming and six is just a waste, plain and simple. Its not just Anandtech that has these benchmarks, either. Do some digging and youll find out.

In fact, I did a little digging and here you go: http://www.techreaction.net/2011/01/...rld-part-22/6/. Pretty much, Sandy Bridge CPUs are superior for gaming in that they get the same performance in games at a fraction of the cost.
If you can get more fps with 190 euros than 900 euros then it means that the 2500k is better.

I just won't continue to argue further, there's a reason the 970, 980 and 990 all cost more than most people on here's houses, let alone their computers.

[Julio.]

Actually even GeForce 8 series has CUDA.

Ah, okay, my bad.

I just won't continue to argue further, there's a reason the 970, 980 and 990 all cost more than most people on here's houses, let alone their computers.

VERY HIGH levels of cache by any chance? D:

[Todor]

Ah, okay, my bad.

VERY HIGH levels of cache by any chance? D:

Add to that 6 cores and per-core performance beating any other CPU on the market  Oh and a fantastic chipset which they work with as well! 

[Julio.]

Add to that 6 cores and per-core performance beating any other CPU on the market  Oh and a fantastic chipset which they work with as well! 

AMD have some epic six core CPUs.  :trust:

[Todor]

AMD have some epic six core CPUs.  :trust:

They rival the likes of i7 930s, not as good per core or overall as 950s at stock and when clocked they're pretty much the same as a clocked 870 (1156)

[Julio.]

They rival the likes of i7 930s, not as good per core or overall as 950s at stock and when clocked they're pretty much the same as a clocked 870 (1156)

Yea, the attraction to AMD is that the Majority of time you get a lot more power for your money.

[Todor]

Yea, the attraction to AMD is that the Majority of time you get a lot more power for your money.

Bang for buck was 6 months ago and still is the i7 950 at the around 150-200GBP range. Plus the new AMD cards suck Tommy Verceti's massive cojones  ('cept for the 6990, that's a motherfaggin beast)

[Julio.]

Comparisons of CPUs performance for usage of one core.

The i7 950 seems to be FAR down that list.

Click 'CPU Value' to see the CPUs in order of Value

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

[Todor]

Comparisons of CPUs performance for usage of one core.

The i7 950 seems to be FAR down that list.

Click 'CPU Value' to see the CPUs in order of Value

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Yeah but you're not using one core, are you?  I don't know how they get their 1 core results but I assume they switch idle on on all other cores then switch hyperthreading off as well. Who would do that in normal usage? Even in Windows I can see all my cores being used (Hyperthreaded too)

[.Tony]

Anyone tell me what is the best Video/Gcards you can get for 3-4k ?

[Todor]

Anyone tell me what is the best Video/Gcards you can get for 3-4k ?

3-4k in what currency? IMHO right now what I'd spend my money on is a GTX570 (MSI GTX570 TwinFrozr) then SLI them when they get cheap in a year or two and games advance.